I am responding to the recent letter by John Cramer about climate change, which says only the sun is responsible (the TSI theory).
After reading this letter, I Googled, “is TSI the cause of global warming.” I certainly found articles that support this theory, but I also found many articles refuting it. I would suggest people read the article entitled, “Probing the Role of the Sun In an Era of Global Warming,” by Michael Lemonick.
It was printed in 2011 on the site called e360.yale.edu (Yale University). I am not going to summarize the article because it is quite long and technical, but it addresses many of the statements made in Cramer’s letter.
The article explains how the TSI theory alone does not explain climate change. One point I found particularly interesting is that if the sun was the only cause of global warming, then the upper atmosphere would be heating up, as well as the Earth’s atmosphere.
The upper atmosphere, however, has actually been cooling. The Earth’s atmosphere is heating up because something is trapping the heat and not allowing it to escape — such as greenhouse gases.
NASA’s website, as well as many others, acknowledge that the vast majority of scientists on the Earth agree that climate change is real and is caused by greenhouse gases largely attributed to human activity. It also lists numerous agencies and groups that agree with this assessment.
Cramer acknowledges the instability of our climate and says it makes it more likely we will have a flood much worse than our flood in 2007, but he attributes this all to the sun. Why completely disregard the theories of the vast majority of scientists, with extensive data supporting them? Perhaps there is room for the TSI theory and the carbon dioxide theory together?
Disregarding the theory of the vast majority of scientists is a bit like playing Russian roulette. If nine of 10 people in the room told you not to pull the trigger because there was a bullet in the chamber, but one person disagreed, whose advice would you follow and why?
With scientists telling us that human activity is contributing to climate change, why wouldn’t we want to do something to attempt to slow the process?
Here is another way to think about the issue. Your car’s tires are always in the process of wearing down as you drive. If you perform jack-rabbit starts (squealing your tires) and slam on your brakes to stop suddenly, you will be wearing your tires down at a faster rate.
If you want your tires to last longer, there is something you can do — you can drive more moderately. Why wouldn’t you want to give that a try? Don’t the odds encourage us to try to do something to slow the process of climate change?
Susan Miller
Onalaska
